Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance |
|---|
Topics: Cooper Tire
|
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
15 November 2017
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52966-52967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0027; Notice 2]
Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper), has determined that
certain Cooper Mastercraft Courser HSX Tour brand tubeless radial tires
do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper filed a
noncompliance report dated April 12, 2017. Cooper also petitioned NHTSA
on April 12, 2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Abraham
Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-5310, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper), has determined
that certain Cooper Mastercraft Courser HSX Tour brand tubeless radial
tires do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS No. 139,
New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper filed a
noncompliance report dated April 12, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Cooper also
petitioned NHTSA on April 12, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the petition was published in the Federal
Register (82 FR 25909) with a 30-day public comment period, on June 5,
2017. No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0027.''
II. Tires Involved: Approximately 484 Cooper Mastercraft Courser
HSX Tour brand tubeless radial tires, size 275/55R20, manufactured
between March 6, 2017, and March 15, 2017, are potentially involved.
III. Noncompliance: Cooper explains that the noncompliance is that
the inboard sidewalls of the subject tires are labeled with an
incorrect manufacturer's identification mark, and therefore do not
fully meet all applicable requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 139. Specially, the tires are labeled with the manufacturer's
identification mark ``UP'' instead of ``UT.''
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.5.1 of FMVSS No. 139 states, in
pertinent part:
S5.5.1 Tire Identification Number.
. . .
(b) Tires manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. Each tire
must be labeled with the tire identification number required by 49
CFR part 574 on the intended outboard sidewall of the tire. Except
for retreaded tires, either the tire identification number or a
partial tire identification number, containing all characters in the
tire identification number, except for the date code and, at the
discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, must be labeled
on the other sidewall of the tire. Except for retreaded tires, if a
tire does not have an intended outboard sidewall, the tire must be
labeled with the tire identification number required by 49 CFR part
574 on one sidewall and with either the tire identification number
or a partial tire identification number, containing all characters
in the tire identification number except for the date code and, at
the discretion of the manufacturer, any optional code, on the other
side wall.
V. Summary of Cooper's Petition: Cooper described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Cooper submitted the following
reasoning:
(a) While the 484 tires in the subject population contain an
improper plant code on the inboard side of the tire, they are in all
other respects properly labeled and meet all performance requirements
under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Plant code
identification has no bearing on the performance or operation of a tire
and does not create a safety concern to either the operator of the
vehicle on which the tires are mounted, or the safety of personnel in
the tire repair, retread and recycle industry.
(b) Tire registration and traceability could be a concern in some
instances where there are plant code errors; however, in this instance,
the incorrect plant code is still tied to a Cooper Tire manufacturing
facility. Consumers will be able to accurately identify the responsible
manufacturer and there will be no issues with registering the tires.
Cooper Tire has modified its internal registration systems to allow for
the proper registration of the affected tires. Cooper Tire accepts tire
registration in a number of ways including electronically via the
company's Web site. Cooper Tire's online database has been modified to
accept registrations from consumers which include an incorrectly listed
UP plant code when the other identifying information (brand, serial
week) are accurately reported. Cooper Tire also accepts hard copy tire
registration cards, which it
[[Page 52967]]
processes manually. As long as the remaining identifying information
(brand, serial and week) are listed accurately on the registration
card, Cooper Tire will process the registration. All internal personnel
responsible for manual processing of tire registration cards have been
made aware of the plant code error and have been trained on how to
accurately process and register tires with the incorrect plant code
information. Lastly, Cooper Tire receives some registration cards
through Computerized Information and Management Services, Inc.
(``CIMS''), a third-party vendor that collects and provides tire
registration cards to a number of manufacturers, including Cooper Tire.
CIMS has been made aware of the plant code error. CIMS has informed
Cooper Tire that they will provide all registration cards to Cooper
Tire that have a Cooper Tire plant code listed.
(c) In the event Cooper Tire has to conduct a safety related recall
in connection with the 484 subject tires, Cooper Tire will include TINs
UT Yl FXJ 1017 to 1117 and UP Yl FXJ 1017 to 1117 in its recall
universe, so that there will be no issues with regard to identifying
the recall population. Should Cooper Tire receive any affected tires in
its service facilities for adjustments, the service technician will
record the proper TIN number to accurately record the data.
(d) Cooper Tire has taken steps over the last year to add
additional checks in its processes to prevent TIN errors. One of those
checks includes implementing software that only allows for the plant to
choose the plant code from a drop down menu that includes only its
specific plant code. In this instance, however, the molds were
transferred from one Cooper Tire facility (Findlay) to another
(Texarkana). The Texarkana employee responsible for preparing the mold
for use in the Texarkana facility only modified the mold on one side
and the error went undetected. The mold containing the error was in
production from March 6th through March 15th and when the error was
detected on March 30th, the plug error was corrected in the mold to
prevent future issues. Responsible Cooper Tire personnel will receive
additional training on these processes.
Cooper concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA'S Decision
NHTSA'S Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed Cooper's analyses that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Specifically, the outboard sidewall of the subject tires are labeled
correctly with the tire manufacturer's identification mark, and
therefore do not have a risk related to safety in the event of a
recall.
The agency believes that one measure of inconsequentiality to motor
vehicle safety is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on the
operational safety of the vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
Cooper certified and stated that the subject tires meet and/or exceed
all performance requirements and all other labeling markings required
by FMVSS No. 139, and therefore NHTSA has no reason to believe that
there are any operational safety issues for these tires.
The agency also believes it is necessary that consumers be able to
readily identify the tire manufacturer for safety reasons. Cooper
explained that while the tire identification number (TIN) on the
inboard sidewall of the subject tires is marked with the incorrect
manufacturer's identification mark (known in the industry as ``plant
code'') ``UP,'' instead of the correct code ``UT'', the information
which identifies the correct manufacturer's identification mark, is
properly marked on the outboard sidewall. These tires can also be
identified by the Cooper brand name and by the tire size marked on the
sidewall of the subject tires.
NHTSA recognizes that Cooper took steps to prevent the possibility
that customers would not be able to register their tires because those
tires have the incorrect manufacturer's identification mark on them.
Cooper worked with CIMS (Computerized Information and Management
Services), Inc., to ensure that the electronic registration database
could accept the registration regardless of the incorrect code and
ensured internal Cooper personnel are trained to manually enter the
incorrect codes as well.
Furthermore, Cooper informed the agency that in an effort to
prevent reoccurrence of this noncompliance, they have implemented a
change to their support software. Specifically, the selection of the
plant code is no longer manual, but rather selected from a drop down
menu with only one choice ``UT.'' NHTSA feels that this is important to
ensure this noncompliance is corrected on all of Cooper's future
production tires since the cumulative effect of recurring
noncompliances could result in a safety problem.
NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that Cooper has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No.
139 noncompliance in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Cooper's petition is hereby granted and
Cooper is consequently exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free remedy for, the subject noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject tires that Cooper no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after Cooper notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2017-24691 Filed 11-14-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P